You are out of your mind and would be not welcome around me, ever. It is this kind of attitude which has sunk this country. You are all for taking things from anyone who you think will benefit a few more.

I'd like to see you try.

Happy New Year

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

get with the program greedy capitalist.

Not sure how the thread got this far off track, but I thought I would throw it out there. I miss the old forum.

If it constantly adapts, which I was well aware of, why even take the shot?

I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't have a clue, it was just the most concise way I could reply it the post. I apologize if that came off wrong. Our back and forth has been a good discussion and I didn't meant to imply anything by it, just point out to Cajun I had addressed that question.

But, to answer you next question.

Because like most mutations, it usually takes a conglomerate of single genetic changes to produce an observable change. A single change in the genetic sequence might not do anything or it could do something. I don't think the idea is that the virus instantly changes from person-to-person. The actual genetic code of the virus may change but the resultant changes in the organism itself could be nothing. Just given enough replication and time within the population, the odds of a new strain arising are increased.

You take the shot because they can predict to a certain extent what strains will be present. I don't know how they do it. I know they collect data from around the world all throughout the year but that's about it.

When you guess right, you protect against that strain.

I don't think the process of change is so fast that it makes the shot irrelevant. Most shots are given prior to peak flu season based on the predicted strains thereby reducing spread from the onset and duration of the "flu season" itself.

I don't see why it matters whether or not an unforeseen strain is covered in terms of covering what you can. You give flu shots in the first place to cover against the one's you can predict. Why wouldn't you do the same in a situation in which an unpredicted strain arises? There are multiple strains each year.

JBond;4953663 said:

If all the other kids in the school have the magical elixir already injected into their bodies, why should they care if one didn't. They have the magic potion in them already. It should not matter one little bit to them. They have the government mandated solution. Nothing could possibly go wrong, so why are they even worried about it?

Posted earlier.

Hoofbite said:

So the problem arises when the identified and targeted strains are allowed to linger around for a long enough time, passing from unvaccinated person to unvaccinated person, replicating and mutating along the way. With enough mutation, it's possible that the previously vaccinable strain escapes coverage and can cross over into vaccinated populations. Now you have a highly communicable disease that can be spread to anyone from a single person or contaminated object to multiple persons in a short span of time and for which there is no effective vaccine currently available.

The issue isn't about whether or not one kid who isn't vaccinated gives another who is vaccinated a strain that is covered.

It's about the covered strain getting passed around for a long enough period of time and replicating enough that the cumulative changes alter the virus into one that isn't covered.

I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't have a clue, it was just the most concise way I could reply it the post. I apologize if that came off wrong. Our back and forth has been a good discussion and I didn't meant to imply anything by it, just point out to Cajun I had addressed that question.

But, to answer you next question.

Because like most mutations, it usually takes a conglomerate of single genetic changes to produce an observable change. A single change in the genetic sequence might not do anything or it could do something. I don't think the idea is that the virus instantly changes from person-to-person. The actual genetic code of the virus may change but the resultant changes in the organism itself could be nothing. Just given enough replication and time within the population, the odds of a new strain arising are increased.

You take the shot because they can predict to a certain extent what strains will be present. I don't know how they do it. I know they collect data from around the world all throughout the year but that's about it.

When you guess right, you protect against that strain.

I don't think the process of change is so fast that it makes the shot irrelevant. Most shots are given prior to peak flu season based on the predicted strains thereby reducing spread from the onset and duration of the "flu season" itself.

Well that's interesting. I didn't know all of that so thanks. That's actually pretty cool.

I'm not completely opposed to anyone taking it so I hope I didn't come off that way. I certainly think there are people who should take them. I just don't think there's a reason for me to take one or a parent to make their kids if they can properly care for the kid. I question if the risks of not getting it becuse you got the shot are that much better than the risk of you getting it without the shot, amongst the average citizen--no outliers.

Please don't get me started on the zillion other shots they pump (or try to pump) own little kid with these day.

Big Oil = angels compared to Big Pharma.

Pharma companies funnel millions into R&D, they have to recoup that and yes it is and should be a concern. You'd be amazed at how much a company will spend in simple advertising for an antacid, think about it when it comes to more expensive pharmaceuticals.

"You know, for a long time I have been of the opinion that artists don't necessarily know what they're doing. You don`t necessarily know what kind of universal concept you're tapping into."~Leonard Nimoy~

Kids his age should be vaccinated and are classified as "high risk" for developing potential flu-related complications.

Managing an allergic reaction is far easier than managing the potential severe consequences that could arise with the flu. The risk for allergic reaction is small because the amount of egg protein is incredibly small.

The benefits of the flu shot far outweigh the risks even in patients with egg allergy. It was in the news not too long ago where some research came out about the flu shot likely being safe for egg allergic populations. The study followed a bunch of people with previous severe allergic reactions to consuming eggs and the rate of reaction was so small it was pretty shocking. Also, none of the reaction from the shot were severe and were basically only hives and such.

[View Full Quote] Hospitals require employees to be vaccinated and undergo annual TB skin testing. They do it because hospital patients often times have compromised immune systems and the flu can flat out kill them.

Kids of this age are at a high risk and the risk increases the younger you get. If this kid has contact with infants or other children under the age of two through an after school program he should be vaccinated. Even if they share classrooms and he doesn't contact these children directly, if he were to get the flu he's going to be spreading it all throughout the common area.

Its offensive as a parent seeing someone w/o children try and relate for a second on this topic.

Hoof, nothing personal, but you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. You have no children nor bond to even try to understand where a parent is coming from when they say you will not vaccinate my child. You will not stick my child w/ things I do not support.

My son has never had a flu shot in his life, nor I. We are never sick nor never get sick. We might get a cold, but probably far less than most.

So please, don't sit here and tell us how the flu shot is some savior, when it has never been proven, but has been proven to have complications.

Thanks

Thank you for your reply I could not agree more, as the father of an autistic 4 y.o boy that may or may not have been vaccine affected this is a very sensitive issue and for those without any skin in the game, well they should just butt out in my view, all due respect.

Pharma companies funnel millions into R&D, they have to recoup that and yes it is and should be a concern. You'd be amazed at how much a company will spend in simple advertising for an antacid, think about it when it comes to more expensive pharmaceuticals.

I've read the cost it takes to develop a single drug from a pool of candidates is like 800M - 1B.

Thank you for your reply I could not agree more, as the father of an autistic 4 y.o boy that may or may not have been vaccine affected this is a very sensitive issue and for those without any skin in the game, well they should just butt out in my view, all due respect.

Posted from Cowboyszone.com App for Android

I my son is autistic as well and he didn't show signs of it until after he was his vaccination. We didn't draw any connection to it until years later after some reports. We don't blame that but we still don't know.

The US does not test people or kids for possible side affects to immunizations and vaccines.

My In-laws have a close freind who moved here 25 years ago from Israel. They had two daughters who were fairly young (I think maybe 3rd or 4th grade range) who got the full immunization suite. One of the daughters got almost fatally ill from it...and it was confirmed that she had massive side effects from the shots. She has been ill with various blood disorders and organ issues for 25 years now. She's a smart and lovely girl but she is currently on her death bed.
Brutal stuff.